EXTENDED STINGER-STEER AUTO CARRIER (ESSAC) PROGRAM PROGRAM LAUNCH BACKGROUND On December 4, 2015, the President of the United States of America (US) brought forward the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act), which amended certain aspects of the US Interstate regulations pertaining to the Stinger-Steer Auto Transporter, including regulated Overall Length, Front Load and Rear Load Overhang limits. The changes brought forward through the FAST Act amended the former dimensional allowances related to the operation of Stinger-Steer Auto Transporters shown in Figure 1. The US Federal Size Regulations for Commercial Motor Vehicles mandated that a state may not prescribe or enforce a regulation of commerce that imposes a vehicle length limitation of less than 75 feet on a stinger-steered automobile transporter with a front overhang of less than 3 feet and a rear overhang of less than 4 feet. Figure 1: Stinger-Steer Auto Transporter Combination Pre-FAST Act The FAST Act now prohibits states from setting a length limitation of less than 80 feet on a stinger-steered automobile transporter. Beyond the 80-foot overall limit of the stinger-steered automobile transporter, an overhang of 4 feet in the front and 6 feet in the rear as shown in Figure 2. 1 Figure 2 – Stinger-Steer Auto Transporter Combination Post-FAST Act In early 2016, stakeholders approached the Ministry of Transportation (MTO) to request that Vehicle Weight and Dimensions (VWD) regulations in Ontario be amended to harmonize with US limits, allowing the use of an auto carrier configuration exceeding current nationally accepted dimensional allowances. Extended Stinger-Steer Auto Carriers (ESSACs) have advantages over currently regulated Stinger-Steer Auto Carriers. ESSACs increase productivity due to an increase in carrying capacity, resulting in fewer trips to haul the same amount of freight. This leads to a reduction of operational costs (fewer drivers and vehicles required per unit of freight), fewer kilometers traveled per unit of freight leading to more efficient use of fuel, and an associated reduction in greenhouse gases (fewer emissions per unit of freight). Finally, ESSACs reduce the number of vehicles on the road, indirectly contributing to a reduction in on-road congestion and on-road exposure. However, due to their size ESSACs have operational disadvantages as-well. Relative to currently regulated Stinger-Steer Auto Carriers, ESSACs have more difficultly maneuvering around corners in a safe manner. Mostly due to the increase in front and rear load overhang limits, front and rear outswing of the combination becomes an issue. There are two distinct safety related issues that can arise when an ESSAC completes a right turn: The front load overhang encroaches into on-coming lanes when the vehicle combination is cornering. Drivers in on-coming lanes may not realize that the left front corner of the load atop the tractor may swing suddenly across their path, 2 particularly if moving fast; and, The left rear of the trailer and overhang encroaches into adjacent lanes, while the driver is unable to see that portion of the semitrailer, and likely cannot see a vehicle approaching from behind. Drivers in an adjacent lane may not realize that the left rear corner of the semitrailer may swing suddenly into their path, particularly if moving fast. Figure 3 – Engineering grade example of ESSAC Enroachment Front Outswing Rear Outswing When completing a left turn the outswing issues might not be as severe, but the trailer rear outswing might still present problems. After consultation with industry, and understanding some of industry’s desire for a solution, MTO has looked into balancing the safety concerns with the potential economic benefits of having these vehicles operating on Ontario’s roads. Although these vehicles will look similar to other vehicles, they perform differently. From a safety perspective, a slow and measured approach toward introducing these vehicles on road is required, with strict monitoring and oversight. This will allow the province to properly evaluate the on-road performance of these vehicles while allowing the common road user to become accustomed to the operation of these vehicles. Currently, road users might not have the reasonable expectation of the outswing issues related to these vehicles. A similar approach has been taken with other programs such as the Long Combination Vehicle (LCV) Program and the Extended Semitrailer Trial. In an effort to better take advantage of the benefits that ESSACs bring to the provincial economy while maintaining the safe operation of these configurations, MTO has agreed 3 to commence a Special Vehicle Configuration (SVC) Permit Program, under the Highway Traffic Act (HTA) Section 110.1(2), toward harmonizing Stinger-Steer Auto Carrier weight and dimensions limits with the recent amendments to US regulations. It is important to note that there is no Canadian experience or data that Ontario can learn from as no other Canadian jurisdiction have allowed these configurations. Ontario will be the only Canadian jurisdiction to allow such a configuration, underscoring the need to expand this Program in a responsible and measured manner. Ontario has some of the safest roads in North America, consistently improving since the regulatory reform toward Safe, Productive, and Infrastructure-Friendly (SPIF) vehicles. Ontario’s controlled SVC Programs have safety records greatly exceeding regular heavy truck travel. The Ontario LCV Program, strictly controlled under the SVC permitting regime, has seen carrier-operators safely complete over 240,000 trips covering some 71,000,000 kilometres of travel with only 8 reported incidents, none of which were as a result of the vehicle being an LCV. WHITE PAPER On April 7, 2017, MTO released a White Paper to industry seeking comments from stakeholders on the development of the ESSAC Program and related Program Conditions drafted after several consultation sessions were held with industry stakeholders, including shippers, carriers, and manufacturers of stinger-steer auto carrier equipment. The White Paper defined all Program Conditions, introduced the potential VWD regime for two different configuration types, and introduced a draft Authorized Network for Travel for vehicles operating within the Program. The comment period over the following six weeks brought support for the Program, voiced concerns around permitting options, and introduced suggested additions to the configuration types available to operate within the Program. The ESSAC Program will allow for the operation of configurations in a limited fashion, under certain operating conditions, with dimensions exceeding what are currently accepted in Canada and the province. There are safety related concerns, but these can be managed and mitigated through an SVC permit program with strict controls. This includes restricting where certain configuration types can operate, so to reduce the possibility of an on road occurrence. The detailed Authorized Network map was developed, outlining where two of the configuration types will be allowed to operate. Under this scenario, if travel is required off the Authorized Network, an engineered assessed route plan must be submitted to the province for review and approval. Under such operating conditions, including the requirement for engineered route assessments, 4 it is anticipated that the conditions under the Program will address the identified risks with these two specific configuration types. Through the White Paper submissions from industry stakeholders, a third configuration type has been introduced. This configuration will not be held to the Authorized Network for Travel as the restricted dimensions mitigate much of the concern with respect to front and rear outswings. Thus, this third configuration type will be operated within the ESSAC Program yet would have the ability to traverse any road in the province without restriction. The White Paper submissions also brought forth differing ideas around the slow and measured approach to permit distribution. Albeit there is support for a permit distribution system whereby each configuration type would be treated differently so to protect industries current investment in standard equipment and that there is support for a system that slowly distributes permits over a five year time period, it is suggested that the cap on permit distribution per carrier be determined based on current Ontario operating fleet size. This would base a carrier-operator’s permit allocation on a percentage of the carrier’s Ontario operating fleet (potentially based on CVOR). This would assure carriers have similar future opportunities in proportion to their current operations. It was also suggested the permits be trailer Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) specific, so to maintain a permit per vehicle threshold. The submissions brought forward highlighted some of the potential issues facing configurations that are held to operating on the Authorized Network, such as issues related to the service and repair of equipment or configurations being ‘trapped’ along the Network for any given reason. Some noted potential issues related to HTA requirements around signage at rear of configuration due to extended overhang. HTA section 111(1) requires that any load that overhangs the rear of a vehicle by 1.5 metres or more must display red flags or lights depending on the time of day. Program Conditions will clearly specify that these displays are required. STINGER-STEER